until we actually set up a method for how the funds are being appropriated and how they are being used, and i personally would like a detailed accounting of what has gone into the fund and how the funds have been used over the past ten years. because it seems that, i do think that every department head should have a copy of this policy, because it seems like i'm the only one that remembers that there is a policy, and when leases come forward, when the budget comes forward, you never see the policy or the funds included. so, had i known that when we were doing the budget and appropriating funds that the funds for the southern waterfront were coming out of this fund and not out of the general budget as every other portion of the waterfront funding is coming from, i

probably would have asked more questions. so, once again, i had to ask for it to be included in this, which should have been happening every year for the last ten year >> correct. >> and this is the first time in ten years that we have increased the amount that's going into the fund that i still don't know how it's being appropriated. >> ok. >> so, i would like a detail accounting of the funds, what the southern water front beautification continuing at 1.1 million means, what does annual mean, you know, how the decisions were made to spend money on these projects. >> i think that we will put a report together. >> we are working on a report. >> i think that david, did you want to comment on some of the reporting in the early years, and i do believe that in the budget it shows, but i

understand completely that we need to provide more detail. but we absolutely will provide an accounting of how the funds have been spent to date and clarify the process going forward. >> right. >> in all our -- commissioner, in all our leases it does have the beautification policy. >> no, not all of them. >> in -- >> i had to ask for it to be included in several. >> and that's something we are still waiting to clarify what leases the southern waterfront beautification fund applies to, because when we had the conversation about pier 70, staff interpretation was it was interim leases only and the maritime were exempt -- no >> no, all included. >> all included. so that needs clarification when we come back with the detailed report. go ahead, david. >> thank you. i was just going to mention that we are working on updating the policy that you had requested

coming out of the pier 70 approvals. some of the projects that you may recall that did go through the commission utilizing those funds specifically were baby rise was a project that we use those funds for, the cargo way bicycle lanes to help leverage a grant we god. repaving the pathway, geo bond project we had. >> you don't have to go through it now, you can give me an accounting. those are in addition to what's here. so, great to just see it all. thank you, jeff. this was a great report. >> thank you. we look forward to -- >> look forward to you guys coming back. >> see you then. thank you so much. >> item 12b, request adoption of the final mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the alcatraz ferry

embarktation project, and three transaction documents. one, general agreement between the port and national park service for 30-year term with 210-year options for use of the site primarily in the embarkation, and two, site improvements and ferry services including for the site to alcatraz island, coterminous with the ferry concession contract, and three, golden gate national park conservancy, improvements and operate visitor amenities including visitor contact station and cafe for 30-year term with two ten-year options co term anonymous with general agreement. >> joined by the entire front row of our partners here on

alcatraz embarkation site, representatives from our division and ggnra staff from m.p.s. and the national park aner questions here today.t i'm going to take you throu many items yave sn before. the presentation outline includes item 1 through 4, a bit of a summary from the january and february informational hearing, i may go through it quickly, stop me if you have questions. i would like to focus in on some of the direction we received at the february meeting and delve into those issues and detail as you consider the action for this evening. the project is located at piers 31, 31.5 and 33. two portions of the site, the green indicates the hopeful future home of our leasee at the

conservancy, and where the concessioners will be operating. transaction you are considering today is, includes multiple parties. at the heart of the agreements before you is the general agreement, that is the agreement we have been negotiating with the national park service for several years now. it governs our roles and responsibilities, relative to operating the embarkation site and choosing new concessioners over time or managing new concessioners over time. our direct relationship will be with m.p.s. for the general agreement and relationships through our leases with the ferry concessioner and the conservancy. national park service relationship will be with us, and also a contract with ferry concessioners just as they do today to operate the ferry service to alcatraz, and operating arrangement with their

non-profit partner, the conservancy, the primary manager of visitation experience and managing the overall campus. the terms are long and flexible in nature. we have negotiated the general agreement to be a 30-year relationship, which keeps the alcatraz business and economic activity on port property for that length of time, something very important to us. as we have been working with our partner, after 30 years, we'll get together, we'll do fair market assessments relative to each of our shares of the economic pie that makes up the alcatraz activity, and we may then both, we may then elect one of the two ten-year options. ferry concessioner will have a lease with the -- with the port after they win a competitive bid process that national park services mandated to do every so

often. the current bidding package is out for a 15-year term. underhe general agreement, the responsibility is put these out as required by law under their federal guidelines and our responsibility is then to present that ferry concessioner with our form, ferry operator lease and can then enter into a lease with us. for the conservancy, tir rol is to provide interpretive materials to operate the retail and the visitor contact station, and to operate the cafe, and their term is coterminous with the general agreement to the extent national park service takes the option and continue to alcatraz after the initial 30-year term, conservancy will then have that same option. just to review of where you are relative to the environmental review, neba compliance is

completed, park service completed early in 2017. ceqa has gone as far as it can go until you take action. negative declaration issued late in 2017. city of sausalito provided an appeal to that environmental review relative to one part of the analysis, which is for repairs at, for baker site and that has to do with a potential line of service that m.p.s. is offering. planning commission heard the appeal, and making the decision led by our sister agency at city planning. other permits are still required for work on our site, staff, army corps, and regional water

quality boards. come only after, or will come after the approvals are complete. and overview of the financial metrics and sort of the size and scale of this operation, alcatraz hosts 1.7 or will host 1.7, 1.8 million people per byfar one of the largest visitor destinations in san francisco, and probably nationwide for a single park. other services will also be required of the new ferry concessioner. these are the visitor maximums that were cleared through ceqa, required of the new ferry concessioner. projected and you al revenue, 44 to $52 million overall. there are two potential services not required by the ferry concessioner that they may be asked to provide, as m.p.s. continues and completes other improvements and other activities. they may undertake in the coming

years. include up to 40,000 people for the fort baker site in sausalito, on ggnra land there, and to beermine number of potential visitors to rosie the riveter. and fort baker, i know the commissioners have received correspondence about this topic and we were speaking with representatives in the city of sausalito this morning, to give you context for what it is. the fort baker service could only occur if repairs are made at ggnra current pier, currently could not handle the type of vessel that's contemplated in the ferry concession contract. the map shows where this is located, in this little horseshoe area in sausalito. it's a pier here that could be, if they make improvements, up to two boats, two vessels, who wrote this slide, we never say boats. two vessels on saturday, two

vessels on sunday. about 200 people per boat, they buy a ticket at our site, which means we get the revenue associated with that ticket. they buy round trip to go there, visit the fort baker site, which ggnra is interested in getting more visitation to the location, it's not super accessible, i think. and then they come back t pier 31.5. they need to budget for approval, they need to get clearance for the improvements, so, that's the sort of description of that service for your background. it was not in our february discussion. from the port perspective, one of our highest revenue generating tenants. we are very keen on keeping it on port property. overall, between the ferry and e tail, bless you, the food and beverage, the new expanded cafe and retail services and then the upstairs office in pier 33, sort of the back office for

the ferry concessioner, anticipating in 2020, $3.2 million. for the first four years, amortizing rent credits up to $3 million and that is in connection with the significant investment th's g into the site on the part of our two new potential leasees. we are rent crediting about $3 milli ohat after negotiations through the term sheet and other documentation we have gone through with m.p.s. i want to just pause on that and move on to the issues that we were asked to address since february. in february, the port commission very clearlyt th a point had just had their first look at the wage determination, which was issued as part of the prospectus packages. we were asked to please go back to department of labor as best we could, and to provide them information which could inform

their wage determination. at that point they had not included any ferry, direct ferry service occupations. we did that for the last 4 or 5 months. we have been providing them whatever information we have. m.p.s. has been contacting them again, the determination that they provide is through their own regulations, and it's not as though it's a public process in any way, shape or form, but they do receive information. so, we have provided our information, encouraged our tenants to provide their information to the department of labor, and they went through a new process, took all the information and what we have before you today is the wage determination that was issued late in may and slightly updated just a couple days ago, after the staff report was published. i'll point out one occupation, adjusted a dime or so per hour, and that adjustment was made after one of the operators, as i understand it, just provided more information to the department of labor. and so they are responsive to

providing information but we understand they have gone through in the last four months a robust process to come up with wage determination, and also the park crew in this part of the presentation. wage determination issued late in may and the senior deck hand asterisk, which indicates the slight change that came out after the staff report was issued. so, now includes occupations which are relevant to a ferry passenger service, which is very, very good news from our perspective. we feel like having this information out now during the competitive bidding process, makes sure that all the operators on this contract have the same number in their performance, how much they should believe they are going to pay their employees at the minimum level. so, i wanted to just point out, in the staff report, the senior deck hand hourly wages were $30.95. since then, they have been updated to $31.85 per hour. the comparison we are able to do

is publicly available information is compared to the hourly wages which are included in weta's contract with blue and gold, blue and gold is a union ferry service provider. so in all cases, the wage determination, the three that i was able to perfectly compare one another against, in all wages, the greenish bar indicates the ferry prospectus wage, and slightly above all the wages in the weta blue and gold contract. so we feel this is representative of the prevailing wages in the marketplace today. but it is not our purview to say that anyhow, because the department of labor provides that determination. if there are any more questions about this process, i'm happy to have others from m.p.s. come up and speak to it, they have gone through it more than the one time that i have gone through it. the second iue we wanted to speak to was the park crews

concept. earlier slide that the alcatraz is 1.7 to 1.8 million people. park cruise concept is a cruise limited up to 90,000 people per year. begin and end at pier 31.5. focus on ggnra interpretive materials and other sites. controls, or has relationships with, throughout the bay. the primary motivation for this new cruise line is to provide another service to visitors to alcatraz who either cannot get a ticket due to oversubscription, or been to alcatraz and want to do something else related to the ggnra sites. the requirement and the prospectus, it's substantive on board interpretive program 45 minutes, and the cap and the ferry concession contract and cleared through ceqa, up to

90,000 passengers per year. a note about this is that the projected gross sales of park cruises would be 2.5 to $3 million in ticket sales. of that amount, the port would receive about $220,000 on an annual basis. and the two points of analysis we included in the staff report relative to this item, in thinking about how this new service line could impact our existing tenants who run other types of bay cruises, for people who also want to get out on the water and enjoy the beautiful bay that we have. two points we wanted to bring up to the commissioners for your consideration are that first visitors to san francisco are going up. they have been going up about 3 or 4% per year each night in daytime visitors. somewhat of a growing pie of potential opportunities for operators who serve tourists, to try to capture more tourists or

day visitors. number one destination is pier 39 and alcatraz, the fourth or fifth most visited among the locations that people want to go to when they come to san francisco. and the second part of the analysis i wanted to raise with you, we ultimately are supportive of the park cruise's concept as expanding our mission, to provide more opportunities for visitors and the public to experience the bay. part of this conclusion is also based upon the new wage determination, which we feel now sets a fair playing field for all of the operators from port property to now the operating under similar constraints, relative to labor costs. and we also wanted to be clear that the park cruise as i mentioned, it was capped up to 90,000 per year, that is a small

share of the overall excursion market. ours is 5% of the total market today and if the market is growing, it will create -- it will represent a smaller share going forward. just an overview of our anticipated schedule, i we receive approval today, we'll go forward to the board of supervisors and m.p.s. will conclude the prospectus process, and then the federally mandated one, x number of months that we have, cannot compress very easily. and if they are able to award the can rt early next year, we'll have a new contractor in place, hopefully by may of 2019. and from the port perspective, that means we can start construction and get these improvements more quickly, and the conservancy can begin their lease later in the fall on pier 31, currently vacant. they can then be up and improved

and ready to go when we open the doors for the new ferry concessioner to take over, and then that ferry concessioner would start their work later in the fall in 2019, after the mad summer season of alcatraz visitors. i have a whole team of question answers available to you, should you pose any questions to us. but we are happy to tackle anything that would be of help in you making your determination tonight. with that, i'll close. >> thank you. >> commissioner brandon, one more thing? or president brandon, sorry. we asked some of our partners to fill out speaker cards and i know greg moore filled one out and was hoping to be called on the earlier side, if it would be ok with you. >> ok. thank you. can i have a motion? >> i make a motion. >> second.

>> ok. we have public comments. anyone mind if greg moore goes first? >> unanimous vote. >> i don't have a card for greg moore. >> thank you so much. i appreciate going first, my comments are relevant to the presentation you gist heard. first of all, good evening, commissioners. on behalf of the parks conservancy, i want to thank the port commission and the port staff for your ongoing collaboration of this project in the works for many years now, and also for your incredibly thoughtful and careful review of the alcatraz embarkation project. i speak on behalf of the board of trustees, who have followed this project diligently, our board chair sausalito, stacy slaughter, the vice president of communication of the san francisco giants, board member rodney fong, on the port

commission at one time, and sf travel. board member dan kinsley of sks investments, and board associate mark buell, the president of the rec and park commission of san francisco. all of these board members have enthusiastically cheered this project along. they could see its incredible civic benefits for a city they care deeply about. all of these civic leaders, as well as leaders in historic preservation and tourism and travel and public education youth development have supported the project along the way. we have the support of s.f. travel, the support of the california historical society, and the support of many san francisco school groups and community organizations who visit alcatraz on a regular basis. in fact, this year with the park service and the conservancy, we offered free alcatraz visits to 8,000 school children community groups and families in san

francisco. and each year the conservancy partners with about 135 community organizations, 60 san francisco schools, the libraries and the public health department, to make our national park accessible to the san francisco community. together with the port of san francisco and the park service we have come a long way in moving this visionary and necessary project forward. and now have an extremely positive project achieving long health goals of all the primary partners. i might add that alcatraz just won trip advisor's award for the number one landmark in america. based on visitor ratings and visitation. so, here we have the top landmark of the united states in our midst and the eighth in the world. i think this recognition bodes well for the project and power of alcatraz as a visitor of destination, with multiple civic community benefits, for the

city, port, port tenants, national park service and the conservancy. as a result, we will continue to encourage the port commission to move this project forward, hope you can achieve its approval today. we have an important timeline to meet and we hate to jeopardize that timeline and the project's ability to hit the milestones with the delay and we are hopeful after your thoughtful review you will give a positive approval to this project this evening. thank you so much. >> thank you. arthur freedman. >> thank you, commissioners. arthur freedman, outside counsel for the city of sausalito. thank you for your time addressing this. this is a matter of great importance to the city of sausalito. i'm here with adam pawlitser,

and others would be here but have a conflicting city council hearing. this matter is great importance to sausalito because the currently proposed fort baker ferry service from pier 31.5, to fort baker, would cause significant environmental impacts in sausalito and the region, unless we make some modest modifications that we have proposed. and we recognize that there are numerous public benefits to the project and for that reason, sausalito has taken great length and expense to focus -- i would like to talk to you about three mainrns conce and our suggestions today. first, based on publications in the national park service, it seems quite reseeable that at some time arriving passengers at fort baker are going to be greeted by connecting shuttle service, taking passengers to other m.p.s. sites, such as muir woods. and we support that.

the only concern is that if those connecting shuttles are directed northward through downtown sausalito, that will result in significant traffic and safety issues. and so we ask as a condition for the approval that in the event in the future there are connecting shuttles, for fort baker ferry passengers to other m.p.s. sites, they be directed southward to highway 101 to avoid the significant impacts. it's a narrow,asy fix and promotes regional transportation, making it work more smoothly. second, sausalito, based on analysis determined that even if fort baker ferry service was limited to two weekend round trips per day as currently planned, i'll talk about that shortly, even if the amount of ferry services limited to that extent, there will be an increase in the number of arriving fort baker ferry passengers who hire cars such as

uber and lyft, coming into sausalito, causing significant traffic safety and circulation impacts, if they have no public transportation option to hop on a shuttle. we asks a condition that fort baker arriving ferry passengers should have coordination with marin public transit, to take these private cars off the road. it's a simple, narrow solution that promotes regional transportation. number three, again our traffic consultants have determined that even if fort baker service is limited as currently planned, it will result in increased congestion and so as a third solution, we would like there to be a condition that allows one rate return ferry service from fort baker back to san

francisco, that gives an option to the many tourists who come to marin by bicycle, lining up for sausalito ferry. it gives tm another return option back to san francisco again a regional solution. >> thank you. thank you. keith manning. >> good evening. my name is keith manning. >> mr. manning, please speak into the microphone. >> good evening, keith manning. i'm a member of the inland boat man's union, san francisco region here. been working on the bay for over 30 years, and i have listened to the presentations, very good presentations. but i have misgivings with the

national park service promoting a service going into competition with legacy businesses here on our waterfront. a couple businesses here that have been in the region for, since -- for 50 years, and built these businesses now, and the -- crews that national park service is promoting will be in direct competition with these cruises, and the solution that the gentleman from sausalito proposed, that ferry would be in competition with established ferries at golden gate transit and gold tour ferries out of downtown sausalito. so, there are shortcomings in

this proposal and i, as a long time san francisco resident, have misgivings with the parks cruises. it's not supporting our legacy businesses. thank you so much. >> thank you. captain fly funter. -- captain fly hunter. >> good evening, president and commissioners. thank you for giving us the opportunity to address the original and some of the changes that were made. thank you for making those changes. two things. first, you know, we put those numbers out that show you what the actual hourly wages are, those numbers are not in a vacuum, not isolated, so also

associated with our health care and i represent all the captains and the engineers, the facility workers, short side employees. $1,550 per month, our competents pick up, health care. retirement is also associated with that number. so, that's not a stagnant, you know, $42 an hour or $31 hour. the numbers differ and all the companies bid on this proposal, they need tosierhat number hopefully. so, that's the first one. the second part is when i originally spoke regarding the, back in the march, maybe, anyway, regarding the bakers portion. i think the number that we are talking about in 2018, we have to consider how they continue to operate ferry services prior to this year and the concessions made by the i.b.u., m.m.p., and in order for the companies to

continue to operate, and so there are tons of concessions that were made that i think we are discarding now, and making the assumption that everybody is making money and these are the numbers and these are the people that ride in boats, and that's not fair. it's not fair to blue and gold, not fair to red and white. i don't think it allows us to have a level playing field. not just what the impact is on 2018, but how we arrived at 2018, and where we are going in the future. so, thank you for allowing us, or helping us make those changes with the m.p.s., in regards to the r.o.e., but still might be a little more work to be done. thank you. >> thank you, pat murphy. >> good afternoon. president brandon, commissioners, executive director. pat murphy, president of blue and gold fleet. blue and gold fleet started off

at pier 39 in 1979 as an excursion boat company. and i think often we get confused between the term ferry and exclusion. blue and gold is better known, we are the operator of the water transportation authority. and ferry by definition of the department of transportation picks up passengers from one point and drops them off in another. that's the definition. excursion company things them up at one point and brings them back to the same exact point. you have heard today from the port staff you hear it in the presentation about the alcatraz embarkation ferry site. every word we heard is ferry and i believe it should say at 31, 33, a ferry site for alcatraz. we think it's a wonderful project, we know they have worked extremely hard to put the deal together. but they have concluded the park

cruise, 90,000 passengers limit and we heard today that this brings additional revenue, the revenue is already there. the port is getting the revenue from ourselves and our competitive companies already. this will be a deterioration, we don't exactly degree with the 5%, we think it's 10, and that's one of the largest portions of our business, a huge market share for us and to lose it not only is financially damaging to the company but worry about loss of jobs for our union employees. thank you for listening. >> thank you. robert irminger. >> robert irminger, good afternoon, commissioners and staff. i'm a member of the inland boat man's union and worked on ferries for 38 years on san francisco bay. so definitely seen some changes

over the years. and my concern among the others already voiced is primarily it appears to me to a degree that the - the r.f.p. is tailored towards the current operator, particularly in the request for 700 passenger vessels -- 700 passenger vessels and two 500 passenger vessels. hard to find 700 passenger vessels based on therem increase in ferry services that have been referenced here, and i would remind people, two words, solar sailor, a main part of the proposal when the current operator got this contract ten years ago. and hey, that never happened, did it? they were also in that contract supposed to build an interpretive center, and that

never happened either. so, i'm a little concerned about what appears to me something that is not necessarily going to be a competitive bid and ild request a continuance on this, thank you. >> thank you. robert strata. >> hello, commissioners, president, director, and vice president in absentia. we came before you in march and we made the argument strongly that the prevailing wages were not in fact prevailing wages, but something akin to a third of them. we made that statement based on our knowledge and our expertise and the local field of the maritime industry here, and an awareness of the related contracts. person after person representing

various interests got up and urged you to disregard that situation. and you had the courage here not to disregard that situation but to step out on a limb and give us the time to actually prove the point and i think that point has been proved. that didn't just happen. that happened because the inland boatman's union and the master mates and pilot, we spent time researching, hired attorney a trip to washington d.c., it took a lot of our bandwidth to get that determination. sometimes the efforts are focussed on people that we represent, sometimes people who we don't represent get the benefit. in 2006, a lot of our efforts, half a million dollars collectively between the two unions was spent getting the existing alcatraz cruises people substantial raise because of a violation of the service contract act at that time.

so we represent people that we, that we actually have as members. we represent people who are out in the field just to keep the standard up, which we did in 2006. and sometimes we just want to ome to bat for good employers that help keep the standard up and that do the right thing by their employers, such as blue and gold fleet and red and white fleet. now, we believe that the situation with the park service branded bay cruises and the custom tailored requirement for two 500 passenger votes and two 700 passenger boats, and the laying on to the future contractor, whoever that may be, the expense already supposed to have been borne as robert mentioned by the last contractor from the proposal, we think they are all inequitable and we don't think that the upcoming contractor should be taking business away from legacy employers to pay for something that the existing employer

should have done with their contract with no penalty. so, we ask for continuance, please, the battle that we started as it was pertaining to the prevailing wage is part of the battle the rest of it we are still engaged in and we need more time. thank you. >> thank you. marina. >> marina secatano, president inland man's union. thank you for allowing me to speak and your hard work. the prevailing wage issue is near and dear one for us, and it's not exactly right yet, but it's so much better than it was, and so i want to thank you for that. but i do want to just echo what you are hearing from our side and that is that you know, had you a study about whether or not the park cruises, how that would impact other employers. but at the end of the day, you

know, our position is this. we don't believe that the federal government should sueiz competition against private business and you have two really good, you know, long-term tenants here that are going to be impacted by that and we feel that should not be part of this r.f.p. you know, ten years ago you guys did a lot of work to try to, you know, level the playing field and you know, we want to value that and appreciate that. but we are still not out of the woods, you know. we are not comfortable if our employers can't bid on this contract. i mean, they did it for 30 some s, iar not saying they would get it if they bid on it but it should be an open process that allows everybody to compete on it and not put barriers, like a boat you could not possibly build for $12 million, $12 million you are supposed to build two 700 passenger vessels. and red and white built one, and

where can you build one for $6 million? when a company is trying to bid on a contract they have to take risks, fincial risks to try to figure out if they can manage this. if there's cost overruns, we want that done as much as you guys do, it would be comfortable. but don't think the concessioner should have to absorb cost overruns. and it's not an unreasonable request. the park service has a right to do it several different ways. they can pick up the costs or what have you, and it should not be put on the concessioner. so we ask you to continue this until these items can be resolved. we think it would be a better process if everybody in the area could also bid on this contract. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item?

>> thank you. i was not planning on speaking, adam pulitzer, the city manager from the city of sausalito. nice to see lots of friends here. i was very impressed with your meeting today and one of the themes that was very clear to me was the regional transportation effort. your waterfront plan talked highly about how to connect to people and get them out of their cars, from the weta discussion, to that presentation, all the way through, and getting people out of their cars, parking, getting people out of the garages. our friends with blue and gold, red and white, golden gate transit, marin transit authority, we have been working very hard with all of them to encourage bike riders to enjoy the golden gate bridge and come

into our town and spend their money. but then head back. and blue and gold and golden gate have done a tremendous job of moving in the month of august last year, 30,000 bikes. 30,000 bikes in the month of august. so, really our ask from you is to continue today's meeting. we are working very hard with our friend with the park service. they have the same interest as we do. but we are still a part in how to find the solution, so we are asking to give us time to continue that effort. continue the theme to connect with santa rosa, through our new train, the smart train that gets to san rafael, or sausalito, and give the people the officials to explore the wine country on bike, hikers alike. i did not mean to speak, i was not prepared, but moved by t earlier discussion and thought i would at least introduce myself.

i'm supposed to be at my own city council meeting this evening, how important it was to our city that i attend tonight's meeting. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? ok, public comment is closed. commissioner woo ho. >> thank you. i thought -- i want to thank staff for the report. i want to recognize all the effort that has gone into over many months to try to get this project. i think we all want to see this project come to a happy conclusion with all the partners involved. and of course, we support the ferry service, obviously, to alcatraz and i know there are lots of issues. we had thought that we were nearing the closeout of all those issues, but apparently today some new ones have surfaced. so, i personally believe that we probably need to take a pause again, i hate to say it, because

i know that the consequences of delaying this, there are consequences and it's painful. but i think that there are not some issues here that we probably have to resolve them further because we want to make sure that everybody, that we can make out a solution that works for everybody here. i'm not sure at the very end, i will say that, that we will satisfy everybody, but i think there are enough issues that we are further apart that we can come closer on to make this a better project. so, i -- as i said, i'm not voting particularly on any particular issue raised today, but just seems like more conversation has to happen, and that's where i stand. >> commissioner mckras. >> i would approach it slightly different in asking for us to continue the item, maybe for a couple of months to the first meeting of august. we had three items before this item and all three of those items were presentation items,

giving the commission ample time to digest the material. the issues that overlap in our organization and then they come back to us. part of that pause in time is strictly to allow us to be able to do our due diligence. part of that time is strictly to allow the public to be able to engage the process. we are asked to do a 50-year lease today and two out of the four people here got briefed today. i prefer not to say that, but at the end of the day, whatever brought us to the briefing to be today, the net result for this individual is no time for me to do my due diligence. if the commission chooses to go forward today, i will stand up, i will cast my vote, but i going to have a lot of questions

and some of the questions are not going to be the most comfortable questions and when you have time to do your due diligence, to ask some off line questions, and understand that two of the commissioners have been here a long time have maybe digested those issues. i want to give myself that amount of time to digest those issues and dive into this, in the smartest way we could. at a minimum we are making a very big decision and i don't think any overlap in other transportations issues on this site. are we going to allow water taxis to park in the same location? i think those are valid answers. this design has two little piers on there. should there be three? i'm going to ask lots of questions, very broad perspective of this, this is

going to impact the waterfront for the next 50 years. so, i'll ask for a couple months to do it. if it's the will of the commission wonderful, if not the will of the commission, i'll roll up my sleeves, i'll ask my questions, get my comments and be prepared to vote. >> commissioner gilman. >> so, i'm following along the same lines as my fellow commissioners. i have a ton of questions, particularly raised by public comment here today. i think it's really critical, a few points i want to make, if we do move forward i would want to dive deeper into the competitive bidding process with the national park service. i understand we don't have jurisdiction over that, i am concerned when i hear a sense of the community of a lack of an open and competitive process. as an individual who has a lot of experience contracting with the city and county of san francisco and federal entities, i think there's a tendency, whether it's conscious or

unconscious, due to the struggle it takes to reissue contracts and move to a different person providing that service i'm concerned -- and i think someone again, just not judging comment was just briefed today to ask two new commissioners to make a determination on something that is so weighty, that is a 50-year commitment. i'm slightly uncomfortable with. i would absolutely support doing continuance to the august meeting. if it's not the will of the commission, i have several more questions, particularly about how the wage data was just presented to us as folded into the rn c. problem second quarters and issued in -- the process, it's benefit, retirement, whatevenion agreement exists with those workers, and just seems like there's been a lot of changing and moving parts to this r.f.p. process and i worry about its

competitiveness. >> thank you. so, i think we should take advantage of the fact that everyone is here today, and i think we should try and get as many questions answered as possible. so, if you guys -- and i do understand that you are new to the commission, you just were briefed on this project today, and we have been going through this for at least three years. so, i do understand that. but i do think we should take advantage and get the questions, get to the heart of the issue so that we can try to resolve them. so -- fire away. >> i do want to say overall, i support the concept, i support alcatraz, i support what the conservancy is trying to do and they have been caught up in this. i would like to ask some questions about the bidding process with the prospective, the national, i'm not sure who would -- rebecca. >> national park service to

answer regarding the bidding process. >> jessica carter may also come up. >> i just want to thank the commission again for seeing us, and for diving into some of these questions. we definitely strive for very transparent process and one that's open and competitive, so, we have this concession contract is of such a high level that it's actually run by our washington office, not by the regional office, not driven by the park, although it benefits the park, benefits the reason, so, we have some representatives from the region and the washington office who can help us with this process, and i will start with jessica carter, our chief of business management to

explain the process initially. >> would you all like me to start at the be depending or do you have some specific questions? >> i think my questions are sort of based on the public comment we heard today, and that is -- and excuse me if i don't have the total timeline, i'll use the new card. issues the prospectus or the r.f.p. in january, correct? and since then, the weight schedule has shifted and changed. i want to make sure i'm understanding what's going on. >> so, we issued a preliminary wage determination with the prospectus, although it did not include some of the maritime occupational categories, and that was a big point of discussion in the last commission meeting. and so we rolled up our sleeves with the port staff and worked with the department to make sure

we got their most accurate, up to date wages for those categories, as well as all the rest of them. and so i don't have the dates in front of me, that was issued in end of may. [please stand by]

-- there are a few tweaks that have come out of our development process, minor edits that we worked with the port staf on. and so the draft lease was -- was released with the prospectus in january as well and we made sure that the public has the most recent version. >> i'm not trying to be difficult, but the tweaks have to do with hourly wages that the operator for this contract will need to pay the workers? >> that is actually under the concession contract, yet, not related to the port lease. >> i understand that. i guess i'm saying, you know, i have 300 employees. when we moved from minimum wage from $14 an hour to $15 an hour,

it can have a $400,000 impact on my agency. if you are complying to a competitive bid and wages change 50 cents or $1, it can change my margin, my bottom line. i don't view it as a small tweak. i view it as something major. i want to be sure that they have the time to prepare what they need to be responding to it. and so i want to make sure that i'm understanding that what we just saw for the wage analysis is what you published at the end of may. >> yes, with one occupation category, yes. >> okay. there was only one. okay. i'm sorry. i didn't understand that. and my other question was, is it accurate and correct, just because i haven't seen it, that it's calling for the two vessels of 700 passengers each that was referred to in public comment and that you have to bid both for the alcatraz service and new

park service? >> yes. it is one comprehensive contract that includes several service lines. with respect to the boats, it is very intentional that we're seeking a large-sized vessel and operationally driven. so it's kind of a well-oiled machine in terms of keeping that schedule going, so that we can serve the optimal number of visitors to alcatraz. those vessels may not be full going out, because we place limits to create a flow that protects the resource and results in a positive visitor experience, on the way back, people can select any vessel, any departure time they would like. so at the end of the day, the investiga vessels are fuller. and the other is emergency response. if there is an evacuation need, we need to have vessels in service that can handle getting people off the island. and support the broader

transportation infrastructure, too, in that respect. >> my last question on this topic and i'm sure other commissioners have questions, too. i'm just wondering, before the prospectus, was there any competitive analysis to see if adding the vessel sizes and the new service, something that i have been struck by in my limited time on the commission is how much we have conversations of ensuring that legacy business, san francisco-based businesses and folks that are smaller in size and don't have the scale of other competitors are part of our waterfront. and what i heard today at least from public comment is there was a sense of the way that this was structured is excluding competition i'm wondering what work you did to ensure that we have a bidding process that's been open and fire to folks that have been part of our waterfront for a long time. >> we do have consultants that

help us to develop the package. we've definitely had a team of folks internally and external looking at what makes the most feasible operation. i can't speak to looking specifically at small versus large scale respondents. i don't know if my -- i think we're really prohibited from considering some of the elements or having direct conversations about some of those facets. so i'm looking at my colleagues to see if there's anything else that they would add to our project team. >> i think i would add two things. this is not a small operation. it can't be run by a tiny mom and pop operator. it's just too big. the number of visitors that want to go to alcatraz is too big. in terms of increasing

competition, that's been a huge focus of this project all the way along. so previously, we would issue an r.p.f. and say, please tell us where alcatraz debarkation can be. it previously with blue and gold was 41. we moved to 31 1/2. we're trying to provide a stable home for anyone that would wish to bid so they don't have to have a place at the port before they can bid. so it does increase competition. >> all the people that are bidding, do they have large boats or is it a finite group of people that have it? >> i know the marketplace has such vessels. i can't speak to how many and